CubeSat

Quote from: markjo on December 11, 2011, 06:39:04 PM

Even so, the German V2 is based on American rocket technology.  Technology that is available to the public.
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-fuel-rocket-engine-plans-manuals-ff80818118fcdec101191843b7813e3c-c.html

Model rockets can't get into space or reach earth orbit. They're children's toys.

What makes you think that I'm talking about model rockets?

      Where Is The Line Between Model and High Power Rocketry?

                A rocket exceeds the definition of a model rocket under NFPA 1122 and becomes a High Power rocket under NFPA 1127 if it:

        * Uses a motor with more than 160 Newton-seconds of total impulse (an "H" motor or larger) or multiple motors that all together exceed 320 Newton-seconds
        * Uses a motor with more than 80 Newtons average thrust (see rocket motor coding);
        * Exceeds 125 grams of propellant
        * Uses a hybrid motor
        * Weighs more than 1,500 grams including motor(s); or
        * Includes any airframe parts of ductile metal.

The biggest difference between model rockets, high power rockets and ICBMs is scale.  The essential technology is all the same.

The biggest difference between model rockets, high power rockets and ICBMs is scale.  The essential technology is all the same.

The difference isn't just scale. You can't just scale up a model rocket and get one that can go into space.

The Nazi's invested a significant amount of money developing the V2 over a long period of time. It took millions of man-hours and the concentrated effort of a super-power to create the V2. With larger rockets there are weight issues, control issues, stability issues, etc. The US was unable to successfully launch large rockets and had to import Nazi scientists to build them for them. Rocket technology was so complicated that the US couldn't do it on their own. That's why a Nazi war criminal was the director of NASA and the organization was staffed by Nazi scientists.

The best and the brightest at the biggest of the 1940's US universities just couldn't hack it. When the US has to kidnap (coerce) Nazi scientists to build their rockets, you know it's a difficult technology.

It wasn't just the US who were unsuccessful with building sizable rockets, either. Russia was also unsuccessful with their early rocket attempts. They, too, had to kidnap Nazi scientists for their space program.

Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.

Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.

Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.

Quote from: markjo on December 11, 2011, 07:46:35 PM

Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.

Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.

Ha, this is funny.  Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis.  Some of the rules are to never hurt citizens and soldiers indiscriminately, or citizens at all, never go to war unless all possibilities of negotiation are exhausted, and other things like that.  One needs only to look at the war in Iraq.  Plus, "war crime" is a silly word.  In war, all the rules are off.  It doesn't make any sense.


Plus, I find it funny that you know all these things about design and stuff.  You're very intelligent and have well-organized thoughts, and I'm surprised that you think Appollo was a hoax on the grounds that the lander looks funny.  You're brilliant, Tom, and if you didn't hold on to such a silly notion, then you would be highly esteemed by everyone, which I'm told is important to you people.  You probably are, somewhat, already, but people think you're crazy, I bet.

Your previous post asked us to build a satellite. We don't have those kind of resources.

That's not all my post said.  You were unconvinced because you can't see the telemetry data yourself (what's your point anyway? All those customers can see it; are you denying that these people exist? Are they all lying?) so I responded that you should take the opportunity to start your own CubeSat project OR you could just get a receiver to see the data yourself, which would cost you less than $200 USD. What's your excuse now?

You also haven't replied to this:

Quote

At the edge of space it's kind of difficult to tell whether you are in space or not anyway. Without context one couldn't tell whether the image from this link was taken from space or not.

You... DO understand that they have quite a bit more data to go on than just raw photography... right?

Or this:

I still don't see an explanation for that photo of Antarctica

But if you would like to donate, you may paypal your money to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com

All donations appreciated!

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you could get donations (even from "non-believers") if we had some assurance that you were actually going to do this. Make it official, get some media attention ("Flat Earth Society Launching Satellite" is bound to turn some heads), sell t-shirts, whatever.

Like I said, this is an amazing opportunity for you to gather some hard evidence and make the world take notice. If you truly believe that, at the end of its rocket journey, the (so-called) space satellite sits in the atmosphere supported by a NASA dirigible, overlooking a non-rotating plane, you know that the proof will be right in front of you if you manage to get some working equipment of your own up there with the "accused" rocket itself -- the smoking gun.

Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis.

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.

Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 12:53:44 AM

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.

Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

Or the Karankawa, for one.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 12:53:44 AM

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.

Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

Tell that to the people of Pearl Harbor.

Could we stop this meaningless (or too meaningfull) debate an get back to the topic?

The topic was pretty brutally mutilated, with Roundy claiming satellites can exist in a FE and Tom talking about the conspiracy. In the end, the CubeSat will go the way of all NASA earth photos and remain at "fake" status.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 12, 2011, 12:53:44 AM

Is that sarcasm?  The US has done some awful things, but worse than the Nazis?  That is a big accusation.

Tell that to the people of Nagasaki.

I am a Russian history major.  I have taken a multitude of college level history classes, and i can assure you that the only argument that could be made regarding the US being equal to the the Nazis would be regarding Native Americans.  That being said, its a stretch of an argument to make.  Sure there were atrocities committed against the Native Americans, i am in no way attempting to downplay the impact of settlers in the "new world".  However, a majority of Natives fell to disease as opposed to death camps, or as a result of expansion of the previously mentioned settlers.  Some settlers did gain the mindset that all of the Natives needed to be killed (this is not uncommon in war, many natives gained this mindset) but it was never the official government policy.  For the most part the US did a horrible job of relocating these people to the worst lands in the US.  But it was never a government policy to set up death camps.

Then we must also take into account that much of this was not US policy but British policy, and it was from about 200-300 years ago.  We must accept those faults, but one must certainly also realize that the standard for which we judge these acts is a 200-300 year old standard.  Had the US or British committed these atrocities during the 20th century they would be judged accordingly. 

The US has done TONS of other horrible things, but no single act can equate to setting up death camps for the Jewish population strictly because Hitler needed a scapegoat for the failure of the German population.  When the US does something horrible its usually because it has something to gain, not because it wants to see something burn.

My final thought is that this is not the word of god.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, i just happen to know where the middle ground/majority view is among historians.  If your family was killed or you had a relative die of radiation in japan due to the use of nuclear bombs, you may have a much more extreme view of the US government.  If the majority of you people died on the trail of tears, you may feel that your people have suffered as much as the Jews in Europe did in the 1930s and 1940s.  And these people would have valid and completely reasonable opinions.  because for them it does not matter how or why such an atrocity could happen, but simply that it did happen, and that it is inexcusable. 

In the end though, these are not the majority view.  There are as many Japanese who feel that their leaders bringing of war to the US was the cause of their sorrow as there are who blame the US, and both have valid and respectable opinions.

So you may claim that the US has committed atrocities equal or worse than the Nazis, it is just that this is not the majority view, it is an extremest position.

Sorry for the boring essay guys, again, i'm a history major so its just in my nature to see a history related comment and go, "well how is he going to back that one up"?

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I don't see how its an atrocity to end a war before thousands of americans were killed attempting to invade the japanese mainland.

So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

Quote from: John Davis on December 15, 2011, 07:56:33 AM

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I don't see how its an atrocity to end a war before thousands of americans were killed attempting to invade the japanese mainland.

There were other motivations besides that.  You have to consider that the goal of the bomb being dropped was to achieve an unconditional surrender.  The Japanese before the bomb strike were willing to surrender so long as they were able to keep their emperor.  After both bombs dropped this was still part of the treaty, so the bomb strikes actually achieved nothing but pain for the Japanese.  We ultimately accepted the surrender because we wanted to prevent Russia dividing japan like it had divided Germany.  So remember, the bomb successfully achieved none of its goals. 

That being said there was no way the US government could have known it would have been ineffective at obtaining an unconditional surrender.  There is also a huge debate regarding how many casualties would have been ensured during a mainland invasion.  Many figures have it much lower than the infamous million man mark in the Stimson report.

So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

Did someone suggest that they deserved that?

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.

The topic is CubeSat and the access it provides to space. Let's not respond to any more off-topic postings by Thork or JD.

I see that the Zetetic Method has failed the FEers. Rather than support their unimpeachable (under the Zetetic Method) conclusion that satellites can't orbit the Earth, they decided to allow 'magic' orbits now.

So did the Guatemalans deserve syphilis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

83 death vs millions?

Are you out of your mind?

Quote from: John Davis on December 15, 2011, 07:56:33 AM

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.

This gets into moral philosophy.  You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand."  How can you measure horror?  Does a number of deaths work?  Can you use a percentage of the total population?  Is that allowed?

Anyway, you have to remember:  Hitler thought he was doing a good thing.  No one ever thinks that they're the bad guys.  He thought Jews were evil, and he was purifying the world.  Likewise, we Americans think that we're the good guys.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on December 15, 2011, 11:08:20 AM

Quote from: John Davis on December 15, 2011, 07:56:33 AM

Well, of course history is going to favour the victors.  We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?

I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government.  Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust.  This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country.  Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease.  There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks).  The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people.  Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history.  An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people.  The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is  stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.

So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts?  If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for.  But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.

This gets into moral philosophy.  You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand."  How can you measure horror?  Does a number of deaths work?  Can you use a percentage of the total population?  Is that allowed?

Anyway, you have to remember:  Hitler thought he was doing a good thing.  No one ever thinks that they're the bad guys.  He thought Jews were evil, and he was purifying the world.  Likewise, we Americans think that we're the good guys.

Its a mojority position, not necessarily the correct position, I have stated that numerous times.  Yes it is dependent upon your morals.  However my original point still stands.  There is no single US atrocity that can rival the Holocaust in terms of what the majority believes.  Ive stated why this is the case.  The Nazis may have believed that killing all jews was the good thing to do, but that concept is not what we were judging.  Historical events are judged in a viariety of ways, but in my experince the normal procedure ivolves a few simple questions. 

1.)  Why was the act done.
2.)  What was the cost to benefit ratio.
3.)  What is the scale of the act

And there many more.  But you will find that in almost every way the question is asked, the Holocaust comes out on top.  Of course there are other questions like, "how many of my friends were killed" which can produce extremest views.

You can defend extremest viewpoints, and they can be every bit as true as the majority viewpoint, however it is still an extremest viewpoint, and with good reason.  For most people of the western world, the Holocaust was the single worst event in modern history.  Its sole goal was the extermination of an entire race.  That is how it is judged.  Millions of people were murdered simply due to their race and beliefs.  It was not so that Hitler could make Germany stronger, in fact it hurt Germany, it provided no benefit to anyone.  It was conducted on such a scale that it is a nightmare to even contemplate.  The united states has committed no acts that rival the scale and brutality of the holocaust. This is not to say that horrible crimes have not been committed, just not on the scale of the holocaust and usually for better reasons than the holocaust (if you believe that motive matters).

Well, yes, obviously the Nazis did worse things than the US.  I didn't mean to say otherwise.  I was just typing it up quickly.  The thing is, though, none of these things have I ever experienced, or have affected me greatly.  I don't know what to think of much of this.  If I experienced those things, or even knew someone who experienced them, I would think of it differently, but I didn't, and I can't really comprehend them.  I just can't get worried about it all, and perhaps I shouldn't.  So, there you go.


Anyway!  About Cubesat, then...